De Viggiani, N., Daykin, N., Moriarty, Y. and Pilkington, P. and ...

This has received cautious optimism from Third sector organisations (NAYJ 2011; NCVYS 2011;
Griggs 2013), although, as Griggs (2013) has highlighted, small charities and agencies are concerned
that they may be disadvantaged in competing for PbR contracts if they struggle to source upfront
funding or to draw client referrals from host organisations. Development costs for new
interventions can be prohibitive, especially for small providers required to re-orientate their
activities towards measurable outcomes. Furthermore, the National Association for Youth Justice
(NAYJ) has suggested that restricting PbR contracts to a single output of reducing re-offending may
obscure underlying causes of offending behaviour, and therefore be perceived as a quick fix for
deep-seated societal problems (NAYJ 2011). Specifically, the NAYJ (2011:3) has argued that that to
link financial rewards to reducing re-offending
“will divert attention from other important developmental, welfare-orientated, milestones.
The wellbeing of disadvantaged children will be subordinated to an arbitrary focus on short
term delinquency.”
In this regard, PbR based contracts may not adequately address health, social or criminogenic
needs that underlie offending. Moreover, heavily regulated criminal justice settings may be difficult
for external, third party agencies to penetrate and introduce innovative programmes. Futon and
Savell (2012) state that PbR contracts are unlikely to be awarded against ‘soft outcomes’, such as
improved resilience, wellbeing or communication, but will be more likely awarded to services who
can demonstrate ‘hard outcomes’; these could include increased youth employment, reduced
custody or reduced re-offending. Successful PbR bidders are also likely to have a good track record
of outcomes orientated interventions, evident through detailed auditing, and robust partnerships
with other sectors. For instance, a service to reduce reoffending might involve partnerships with
education establishments, families and employers, as well as youth justice providers.
12 | P a g e